However, he does have a record. Here are some things I have posted in the past.
This is so weak. You accuse Bush of "lying", yet all you can come up with are unsubstantiated allegations, legitimate semantic disagreements, and (ugh!) Molly Ivins calling Bush a liar. Ivins is, of course, so extreme in her liberalism that she is incapable of presenting a shred of factual information in her so-called columns. Her supposed "take" on Texas politics is has always been long on sarcasm and short on facts.
What is really disingenious about your remarks is that while you criticize Bush for these three non-lies, you fail to criticize Clinton for compulsive lying, which gave us untold hundreds of well-documented lies during an eight-year term as president, and at least as many during his terms as governor of Arkansas. While not as frequent a liar as Clinton, Al Gore was repeatedly caught in lies during his term.
Bottom line, it is indeed bizarre that you would see fit to criticize Bush for what, by anyone's measure, is no more than political rhetoric, while you give Clinton/Gore (and for that matter, other liberals like this sleezy Terry McAuliffe, Carville, & Begala) an out and out pass on the tons of serious lies they have told.
Why do you do this? |
